Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!grivel!gara!pnettlet
From: pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is no good!
Summary: Searl versus Turing - No comparison at all!
Message-ID: <3211@gara.une.oz.au>
Date: 16 Aug 90 07:41:54 GMT
References: <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <3156@gara.une.oz.au> <2870@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Lines: 61

From article>2870@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>, by frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen):
>>> ... To me the turing test only tests if a computer can imitate human
>>> intelligence (and presumably human thought). ...
> 
>>"I think, therefore I am" - I still haven't found any proof that other
>>people exist, I merely choose to BELIEVE they do. Imitation is a nice
>>concept to pose when trying to undermine the Turing Test, but something
>>clever enough to imitate a human being well enough to fool a human
>>interrogator, must be of equivalent or higher intelligence itself.
>>Remember, ANY question is fair game in the Turing Test.
> 
> But to me Searle shows how it is possible to construct something that
> will answer any question without understanding it.  (I don't believe
> it would be possible but I can't prove it and after reading Searle's
> paper it seems like a valid though experiment).  I disagree with
> Searles conclusion however since his reasoning seems a bit circular.

The problem with this is that YOU are not real. Or rather, you are MERELY
a machine trying to convince me that you are a human being by posing questions
that put your own intelligence into question :-). Prove that you are not,
and we may have some basis for discussion on the Turing Test.

You see, Searl's experiment means nothing because although Searl, as part
of the system, knows nothing about Chinese, the system as a whole does.
Would you expect the CPU of a computer to know about Computer Aided Design?
And yet a computer system, containing a CPU and running a CAD program, can
do CAD. Searl is acting as the CPU. That doesn't mean the system, containing
Searl, is not intelligent, even if Searl isn't. If the system could pass
Turing Test (and this is debatable) then I for one wouldn't argue against
it being intelligent.

> What Searle shows (to me) is that the turing test might be inadequate
> to test understanding of some things but only in extreme cases. (the
> chinese room being one of them).  But I don't see how he disproves
> strong AI.

Remember, ANY question is fair game.

-	"What did you have for breakfast?"
-	"What do you think of Black Sabbath?"
-	"Are you married?"
-	"What is your wife's name?"
-	"Do you enjoy sex?"
-	"Have you ever been unfaithful to her?"
-	"If you saw a dog run over in the street, what would you do?"

(This is starting to sound a little like "Blade Runner", or the original
Philip K. Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".)

For a machine to pass a test like this, you'd better hope its not packing a
gun when you say its not intelligent. It may REALLY have feelings and may
take extreme offense to an inferior (organic no less) being denying its
obviously superior intellignce.

						Philip Nettleton,
						Tutor in Computer Science,
						University of New England,
						Armidale,
						New South Wales,
						2351,
						AUSTRALIA.